Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the mom is SAHM and dad has demanding job, dad may have less time out of necessity particularly if a lot of work travel.

Mom is not SAHM. Job is not particularly demanding but hours are longer than moms.

So a dad can get penalized in terms of custody for being the main provider? Would a dad with a more kid-friendly schedule get more custody than a mom who would gone from 7:30- 6 b/c of commute and work? Oldest can drive fwiw.

Mom will probably claim some kind of abuse or neglect but if he is the high earner and she is a teacher/works at a school, the issue is money. If he is not working, she will probably not get alimony so she will need the child support to maintain her lifestyle/house. So, she needs to have the kids overnight as the child support is calculated based on where the kids sleep overnight. So, huge difference in her having full custody/Dad 4 nights a month vs. 50/50.

What if Dad offers more support than the calculation calls for?

He could do that. But, who knows what Mom's motives are at that point. More than likely he'll pay child support, health care, clothing and all activities so all she will have is housing costs and food.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think sleeping arrangements has much to do with being the primary parent. "Primary parent" means the parent that does most of the childcare. Since the mom works at the school and the dad doesn't get home until 6, I imagine she is indeed the primary parent.

Oh, and when there are custody disputes, judges try to disturb the kids' lives as little as possible. If they were to live with the dad they would be without one of their parents until 6PM every night. That could be why.

But sometimes judges are kind of old school and think moms are better caretakers. Only every other weekend seems like not a lot of dad time to me. It's hard to say based on the facts here.

Somebody mentioned an AP. Family courts don't always count affairs against a parent in terms of custody. You can be a bad spouse but a good parent.

Many families with two working parents don't see their kids until 6 PM during the week. Our aftercare is open until 6:30. Pre-covid, I would usually pick up between 6 and 6:15 and there were plenty of kids still there.

I find it hard to believe that would be held against a parent.

It’s not being held against him as a judgment of his parenting. It would just be a factor in how much it would disrupt the kids lives if they were to live with their dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think sleeping arrangements has much to do with being the primary parent. "Primary parent" means the parent that does most of the childcare. Since the mom works at the school and the dad doesn't get home until 6, I imagine she is indeed the primary parent.

Oh, and when there are custody disputes, judges try to disturb the kids' lives as little as possible. If they were to live with the dad they would be without one of their parents until 6PM every night. That could be why.

But sometimes judges are kind of old school and think moms are better caretakers. Only every other weekend seems like not a lot of dad time to me. It's hard to say based on the facts here.

Somebody mentioned an AP. Family courts don't always count affairs against a parent in terms of custody. You can be a bad spouse but a good parent.

So, its better for them to live without their Dad who has been an equal parent all along vs. both parents. Every other weekend is 4 nights a month. Its about money. Child support is based off where the child sleeps at night. Mom gets more child support if kids sleep at her house. Its more disruptive to kids to lose their father and Dad become more of an uncle figure vs. Dad.

Cheater mom who did less with teen boys than dad wants the kids only because she has never worked a day in her life and wants the child support $. Though she was the one bringing AP to the house.

You are losing a lot of credibility, OP. It’s clear you’re not even trying to present a balanced picture, which makes everything you say suspect. Let me guess, you’re the new girlfriend and it’s very important to you to be able to believe that he’s not a mediocre parent?

Nothing in OP comments said Dad was a bad parent, in fact it was the opposite. So, why should he get less time if he's been an equal parent? Why do you assume its always the Dad who cheats and is the bad parent? Mom's can cheat and be the bad parent. It goes both ways.

However none of it is relevant for custody. Teens need both their parents. Why would you advocate to take away a parent just for money? OH wait, money is all you care about?

Why are you making bizarre personal attacks on posters who have no personal involvement in this situation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a 50/50 split, trading off weekends is appropriate. Is dad able to have the kids stay at his house 2-3 days every week, including getting them to school in the morning, picking them up afterward, and taking them to after school activities?

This is a pretty key question. Are you going to answer it, OP? IME, when there’s a significant disparity in the schedule, it’s often because dad’s work schedule doesn’t accommodate weekday parenting, and he’s not willing to make job changes so he can be a weekday parent.

Read the post. Kids are older/teens and preteens so when school is in session many are not home till later. Dad is asking for 50/50, mom is saying no. OP said Dad is a very involved Dad. Dad is home before 6/dinner time. Kids at that age don't need after care.

So if a kid gets home from school at 3pm, they will be home unsupervised for 3+ hours until dad gets home? If there’s an alternative that provides more adult supervision, it’s not surprising that the court would lean that way.

Dad can pay for after school care or sitter.

Did you read the post. OP is saying kids are older/no after care. Or, mom can watch the kids till Dad gets home and he can get them from mom before dinner. Most middle school/teens are not in after care except with SN's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think sleeping arrangements has much to do with being the primary parent. "Primary parent" means the parent that does most of the childcare. Since the mom works at the school and the dad doesn't get home until 6, I imagine she is indeed the primary parent.

Oh, and when there are custody disputes, judges try to disturb the kids' lives as little as possible. If they were to live with the dad they would be without one of their parents until 6PM every night. That could be why.

But sometimes judges are kind of old school and think moms are better caretakers. Only every other weekend seems like not a lot of dad time to me. It's hard to say based on the facts here.

Somebody mentioned an AP. Family courts don't always count affairs against a parent in terms of custody. You can be a bad spouse but a good parent.

So, its better for them to live without their Dad who has been an equal parent all along vs. both parents. Every other weekend is 4 nights a month. Its about money. Child support is based off where the child sleeps at night. Mom gets more child support if kids sleep at her house. Its more disruptive to kids to lose their father and Dad become more of an uncle figure vs. Dad.

Cheater mom who did less with teen boys than dad wants the kids only because she has never worked a day in her life and wants the child support $. Though she was the one bringing AP to the house.

You are losing a lot of credibility, OP. It’s clear you’re not even trying to present a balanced picture, which makes everything you say suspect. Let me guess, you’re the new girlfriend and it’s very important to you to be able to believe that he’s not a mediocre parent?

Nothing in OP comments said Dad was a bad parent, in fact it was the opposite. So, why should he get less time if he's been an equal parent? Why do you assume its always the Dad who cheats and is the bad parent? Mom's can cheat and be the bad parent. It goes both ways.

However none of it is relevant for custody. Teens need both their parents. Why would you advocate to take away a parent just for money? OH wait, money is all you care about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think sleeping arrangements has much to do with being the primary parent. "Primary parent" means the parent that does most of the childcare. Since the mom works at the school and the dad doesn't get home until 6, I imagine she is indeed the primary parent.

Oh, and when there are custody disputes, judges try to disturb the kids' lives as little as possible. If they were to live with the dad they would be without one of their parents until 6PM every night. That could be why.

But sometimes judges are kind of old school and think moms are better caretakers. Only every other weekend seems like not a lot of dad time to me. It's hard to say based on the facts here.

Somebody mentioned an AP. Family courts don't always count affairs against a parent in terms of custody. You can be a bad spouse but a good parent.

So, its better for them to live without their Dad who has been an equal parent all along vs. both parents. Every other weekend is 4 nights a month. Its about money. Child support is based off where the child sleeps at night. Mom gets more child support if kids sleep at her house. Its more disruptive to kids to lose their father and Dad become more of an uncle figure vs. Dad.

Cheater mom who did less with teen boys than dad wants the kids only because she has never worked a day in her life and wants the child support $. Though she was the one bringing AP to the house.

You are losing a lot of credibility, OP. It’s clear you’re not even trying to present a balanced picture, which makes everything you say suspect. Let me guess, you’re the new girlfriend and it’s very important to you to be able to believe that he’s not a mediocre parent?

That is not me. No idea what this person is talking about. - op

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. He doesn't want it

or

2. He did something horrific

Or

1. Family court is biased against men.

Or

2. She is willing to out spend him in legal fees.

I’ll give you 2) but 1) is codswallop.

She may be willing to outspend him to get the court to order he pay her attorney fees.

Why would a court grant that?

Its common when one parent earns more than the other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think sleeping arrangements has much to do with being the primary parent. "Primary parent" means the parent that does most of the childcare. Since the mom works at the school and the dad doesn't get home until 6, I imagine she is indeed the primary parent.

Oh, and when there are custody disputes, judges try to disturb the kids' lives as little as possible. If they were to live with the dad they would be without one of their parents until 6PM every night. That could be why.

But sometimes judges are kind of old school and think moms are better caretakers. Only every other weekend seems like not a lot of dad time to me. It's hard to say based on the facts here.

Somebody mentioned an AP. Family courts don't always count affairs against a parent in terms of custody. You can be a bad spouse but a good parent.

So, its better for them to live without their Dad who has been an equal parent all along vs. both parents. Every other weekend is 4 nights a month. Its about money. Child support is based off where the child sleeps at night. Mom gets more child support if kids sleep at her house. Its more disruptive to kids to lose their father and Dad become more of an uncle figure vs. Dad.

Cheater mom who did less with teen boys than dad wants the kids only because she has never worked a day in her life and wants the child support $. Though she was the one bringing AP to the house.

You are losing a lot of credibility, OP. It’s clear you’re not even trying to present a balanced picture, which makes everything you say suspect. Let me guess, you’re the new girlfriend and it’s very important to you to be able to believe that he’s not a mediocre parent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a 50/50 split, trading off weekends is appropriate. Is dad able to have the kids stay at his house 2-3 days every week, including getting them to school in the morning, picking them up afterward, and taking them to after school activities?

This is a pretty key question. Are you going to answer it, OP? IME, when there’s a significant disparity in the schedule, it’s often because dad’s work schedule doesn’t accommodate weekday parenting, and he’s not willing to make job changes so he can be a weekday parent.

Read the post. Kids are older/teens and preteens so when school is in session many are not home till later. Dad is asking for 50/50, mom is saying no. OP said Dad is a very involved Dad. Dad is home before 6/dinner time. Kids at that age don't need after care.

So if a kid gets home from school at 3pm, they will be home unsupervised for 3+ hours until dad gets home? If there’s an alternative that provides more adult supervision, it’s not surprising that the court would lean that way.

Dad can pay for after school care or sitter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even with a 50/50 split, trading off weekends is appropriate. Is dad able to have the kids stay at his house 2-3 days every week, including getting them to school in the morning, picking them up afterward, and taking them to after school activities?

This is a pretty key question. Are you going to answer it, OP? IME, when there’s a significant disparity in the schedule, it’s often because dad’s work schedule doesn’t accommodate weekday parenting, and he’s not willing to make job changes so he can be a weekday parent.

Read the post. Kids are older/teens and preteens so when school is in session many are not home till later. Dad is asking for 50/50, mom is saying no. OP said Dad is a very involved Dad. Dad is home before 6/dinner time. Kids at that age don't need after care.

So if a kid gets home from school at 3pm, they will be home unsupervised for 3+ hours until dad gets home? If there’s an alternative that provides more adult supervision, it’s not surprising that the court would lean that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. He doesn't want it

or

2. He did something horrific

Or

1. Family court is biased against men.

Or

2. She is willing to out spend him in legal fees.

I’ll give you 2) but 1) is codswallop.

It is much less of a problem now than it was in the past. But, it is not wrong to say that men can at times have a disadvantage in family court, even when all the relevant facts are equal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the mom is SAHM and dad has demanding job, dad may have less time out of necessity particularly if a lot of work travel.

Mom is not SAHM. Job is not particularly demanding but hours are longer than moms.

So a dad can get penalized in terms of custody for being the main provider? Would a dad with a more kid-friendly schedule get more custody than a mom who would gone from 7:30- 6 b/c of commute and work? Oldest can drive fwiw.

Mom will probably claim some kind of abuse or neglect but if he is the high earner and she is a teacher/works at a school, the issue is money. If he is not working, she will probably not get alimony so she will need the child support to maintain her lifestyle/house. So, she needs to have the kids overnight as the child support is calculated based on where the kids sleep overnight. So, huge difference in her having full custody/Dad 4 nights a month vs. 50/50.

What if Dad offers more support than the calculation calls for?

Equal time is not good for the kid. Do 50/50, but in reality, stop making the kids go back and fourth all the time. Nobody care who cheated or who beat whom.
I share custody with ex-DH. He was required to pay some minimum of $400 a month ($300 of which I promised to put into 529) and health insurance. Has never paid health insurance and is ca 3 years behind on this $400 a month.
Heck with it all. I'm happy the child can come and go when he wants the last 5 years or so, and has actually chosen to live with my sister and BIL. 50/50 was necessary to make DH, myself and court happy.
Once you have the 50/50, all should chill out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. He doesn't want it

or

2. He did something horrific

Or

1. Family court is biased against men.

Or

2. She is willing to out spend him in legal fees.

I’ll give you 2) but 1) is codswallop.

She may be willing to outspend him to get the court to order he pay her attorney fees.

Why would a court grant that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the mom is SAHM and dad has demanding job, dad may have less time out of necessity particularly if a lot of work travel.

Mom is not SAHM. Job is not particularly demanding but hours are longer than moms.

So a dad can get penalized in terms of custody for being the main provider? Would a dad with a more kid-friendly schedule get more custody than a mom who would gone from 7:30- 6 b/c of commute and work? Oldest can drive fwiw.

Mom will probably claim some kind of abuse or neglect but if he is the high earner and she is a teacher/works at a school, the issue is money. If he is not working, she will probably not get alimony so she will need the child support to maintain her lifestyle/house. So, she needs to have the kids overnight as the child support is calculated based on where the kids sleep overnight. So, huge difference in her having full custody/Dad 4 nights a month vs. 50/50.